Document 2 - Draft Staff Analysis and Comments Table
Row Portion of the Bill
no.
1 Schedule 1 - Cannabis Control Act
2 Schedule 2 – Conservation Authorities
Act
3 Schedule 3 – Development Charges Act –
removal of soft services (parks
development, recreational facilities,
libraries, corporate studies, paramedic
services, affordable housing)
Staff Analysis
• Adds additional enforcement powers for
police for premises that are not licensed to sell
cannabis
• Does not relate to City operations
• The amendment removes soft services from
development charges (refer to Memo from
Legal Services)
• Shifts paying growth related soft services to
the Community Benefits Charge – which has
an overall cap based on an unspecified
percentage of land value. Refer to comments
below on Community Benefit charges.
• In 2018, the City received approximately $32
million for soft services from DCs
• Soft Services make-up 6.62% or $159.9M in dc
eligible costs over 10 years.
• This has a significant revenue impact on the
City and the potential to shift growth related
costs from development charges to the
property tax base, (e.g. over $89M in growth-
related funding for future recreation facilities
would be eliminated)
Recommended City Comment
City supports the amendment.
The City has no comment.
The City urges the Province to withdraw this portion of the legislation and take more
time to consult with municipalities on appropriate ways to contain growth-related
costs for soft services.
Growth should continue to pay for growth under the existing prescriptive set of
requirements.
Reducing development charges means more competition for other limited funding
sources such as property taxes and user rates. Existing taxpayers and ratepayers will
have to fund the cost of growth-related infrastructure. This transfer of costs to
existing homeowners, including seniors and low-income families, will increase their
overall cost of housing. There is no evidence that reductions in development
charges will result in a decrease in new house prices.
4 Schedule 3 – Development Charges Act – •
waste diversion services
5 Schedule 3 – Development Charges Act – •
Payment over six installments for
certain uses (rental housing,
institutional, industrial, commercial, and
non-profit housing)
6 Schedule 3 – Development Charges Act
– calculation of applicable rates tied to
timing of site plan or zoning application
The amendment reduces the statutory
deduction for waste diversion services which
will allow the City to collect full growth-related
costs
These uses will be able to pay their DCs in six
installments over five years
• The City only has the ability to charge interest
at a prescribed rate
• This will have a cash flow impact on the City’s
collection of development charges
• The City has an interest in promoting non-
profit and purpose-built rental housing
• There may be an economic development
benefit to deferrals of charges for industrial
and commercial, and the new rules are clear
and applicable to all businesses
• Rates are set earlier in the application process
(refer to memo by Legal Services)
• Short term cash flow impact to the City until a
new by-law is adopted that spreads overall
growth-related costs over different
assumptions of when charges will be paid
• The City will also have to develop a new
tracking system to administer the complex
process.
The City supports the removal of the 10% statutory reduction, which required
taxpayers to fund eligible growth-related costs.
This will result in an overall reduction in revenues and will delay the construction of
the required infrastructure needed to support growth. There is a requirement to be
built water and waste water services in advance of development, but these upfront
costs will have to financed, to a greater extent by municipalities. The reduction in
cash flow will negatively impact the repayment process and increase the financial
risk. There are issues with to how to ensure the six payments are made and the
overall administration (e.g. what are the requirements to communicate first
occupancy, what happens when properties change hands over repayment period,
how will the annual carrying costs be recovered). In our case, requiring payment
using installments will not allow the City to continue to provide the financial
assistance that has been provided in the past via a lump sum cash payment for the
construction of growth-related infrastructure.
The City has no comments
• In reference to Short term cash flow: Don Herweyer stated: Did not see the
memo from Legal Services – in reviewing the Act presumably the Regulations will
establish the prescribed amount of time where a zoning or site plan application
can be used to grandfather the DC rate.
• There should be a requirement to have a mechanism in place for applicants to
pay their development charges as quickly as possible rather than to be allowed
to submit an initial application and then wait several years to obtain their first
building permit. The City will also have to develop a new tracking system to
administer the complex process.
• Linking the applicable development charge rates to the timing of site plan or
zoning applications will fundamentally alter the matching principle by which
growth-related expenses over the by-law period are required to be matched with
the revenues generated by the fees. Inevitably, a significant discrepancy in
timing will develop that will impact the City’s ability to deliver the capital projects
that were the basis for the development charge calculation.

7 Schedule 4 – Education Act
8 Schedule 5 – Endangered Species Act
9 Schedule 6 – Environmental Assessment
Act
• Suggest following Addition to the Province: Provide legislative authority to
register Section 27 agreements (agreements for early or late payment of
development charges) on title.
Suggest amending Schedule 3 (Development Charges Act) of Bill 108 to provide:
Section 27 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
(4) A party to an agreement under this section may register the agreement or a
certified copy of it against the land to which it applies.
• Does not relate to City operations The City has no comments.
• Sets new rules for how species are listed The City has insufficient information to comment.
• Allows for the Minister to enter into
compensation “landscape agreements”
• We are concerned that the proposed changes
to Section 18 of the ESA may enable future
downloading of responsibility onto the City, if
the Province later decides to make Planning
Act approvals into “regulated activities” under
the ESA (i.e., our Planning approval would also
constitute approval under the ESA in some
circumstances – which would place greater
pressure on our planners to ensure that
species at risk were appropriately considered)
• Many of the other proposed changes
regarding the listing and protection of species
could provide the City with some relief
regarding our projects (since it will take longer
for species to be listed and gain protection
under the Act, and new authorization options
are being introduced)
• Operational changes already in effect may
impact approvals or other authorizations
currently being sought due to the reduction in
provincial staff resources
• Closes a legal loophole that exposes low risk The City supports the amendment.
Schedule A and A+ municipal projects to Part 2
 Order Requests (an order to do a full individual
environmental assessment). Those projects
are municipal operations and minor projects.
• Until recently they were interpreted as “pre-
approved”. A relatively recent MOECP decision
determined they were exposed to Part 2 orders
• Amendment responds to a request from the
Municipal Engineers Association
10 Schedule 7 – Environmental Protection • Adds enforcement powers for the Province to The City supports the amendment.
Act seize vehicles used in a provincial
environmental offence
11 Schedule 8 – Labour Relations Act • Does not relate to City operations The City has no comment
12 Schedule 9 – Local Planning Appeal • Enables LPAT to require alternative dispute It is staff’s opinion that Council is unlikely to reach a consensus on this matter, and
Tribunal Act resolution process consequently recommend that Council take no position on this issue.
• Enables LPAT to limit cross examination of a
witness in specific circumstances Should individual Councillors wish to make their own submissions to the Province on
• Limits the role of non-parties in a hearing this topic, staff will provide advice.
• Limits the LPAT from referring a case to
Divisional Court
• Reintroduces de novo hearings
13 Schedule 10 – Occupational Health and • Minor technical amendments to process that The City has no comments.
Safety Act have no real impact on City operations
14 Schedule 11 – Ontario Heritage Act – • The legislation sets new procedures for The City supports clarifying the process of notification and appeal, however,
procedural matters & HCDs Heritage Registers, adoption of a designation however, the City suggests the objection period for the Register (Section 27) should
by-law, repeal of by-laws, and alterations to be defined and limited to reflect the appeal periods found in other sections of the
property. The alterations to procedures will Act (i.e., Section 29(5) and 41(4).
have an effect on the City’s procedures but
they are manageable. The City requests that Section 27 be amended to provide for a more efficient listing
• There is no timeline provided for the owner to process to require the City to notify an owner in advance of listing a property under
file an objection to the listing on the Register Section 27 and allow an owner to object to listing at a statutory public meeting
after the notice has been issued. This means before Council decides to list properties on the Register. If this change is made,
that a new owner could object to a listing of subsection 27(9) should be applicable from the date that notice is given respecting
the property on the Register prior to their the proposed listing.
ownership.
 • The proposed objection process for Listing The City suggests that the proposed changes to 41(1) 3, which implies that HCD Plans
under Section 27 will require Council to must include a description of heritage attributes for every property in an HCD, be
consider listings on the Register twice, once clarified.
when the property is added and again after an
owner has filed an objection.
• Section 41(1) 3, which implies that HCD Plans
must include a description of heritage
attributes for every property in an HCD, would
potentially be a significant undertaking to
update the existing information to conform
with these requirements as the City’s post-
2005 plans do not contain this information and
revisions to these plans to include this
information.
15 Schedule 11 – Ontario Heritage Act – • Appeals no longer go to the Conservation The City requests the Province appoint LPAT members with heritage conservation
appeals Review Board – they now go to the LPAT. The experience.
City’s experience is that the vast majority of
appealed heritage applications are The City requests that Section 29 be amended to provide for a more efficient process
accompanied by planning applications, so the as follows:
matter would have been heard by LPAT. Staff
feel this simplifies the process. a) allow objections to a notice of intention to designate at a statutory public
• The Conservation Review Board currently meeting before Council makes any decision respecting designation;
reviews appeals related to the designation of
individual properties under Part IV of the Act. b) only permit an owner or individual to appeal a notice of intention to designate
The CRB makes a non-binding to the Tribunal, who has made an objection at a statutory public meeting to
recommendation to City Council on appeals appeal a notice of intention to designate to the Tribunal;
under this part.
• The proposed changes will mean that appeals c) make the decision of Council to issue Notice of Intention to designate
related to Part IV designations will now be appealable, rather than the bylaw itself.
forwarded to the Local Planning Appeals
Tribunal, removing Council’s power to make
the final decision related to Part IV properties.
• The proposed changes require Council to
consider a property twice (i.e., 1st prior to
 issuing the Notice of Intent; and 2nd if an
objection to the Notice of Intent is received).
This would result in an increased demand on
BHSC and Council.
• The proposed objection process for
designation under Part IV is inefficient and will
require Council to consider Notices of
Intention to designate twice, once when the
Notice of Intention is issued and again if the
property owner objects to the Notice of
Intention. In addition, the owner can later
appeal a designation by-law to LPAT.
16 Schedule 12 – Planning Act – secondary • Requires permission of secondary units. The City supports the intent of the amendment, but the City requests that it be
units • The City already permits secondary units. changed so that the City has the option to permit either a secondary unit or a coach
However, this amendment would make it house, or both.
permissible in all single detached semis and
towns + coach house type units – Ottawa ZBL
already permits SDUs in singles, semis, towns
(Except in Village of Rockcliffe) – would change
Ottawa ZBL and also allow coach house even if
you already have a secondary dwelling unit.
17 Schedule 12 – Planning Act – • The amendment limits inclusionary zoning to The City believes that implementation of inclusionary zoning is likely to focus on
inclusionary zoning major transit station areas or areas where the transit station areas in the near term, which is consistent with what is permitted
Minister designates an area as a Development under the proposed amendment. However, because the City has not fully studied the
Permit Area. implementation of inclusionary zoning, it cannot rule out that areas outside of major
• The introduction of a Development Permit transit station areas would also be appropriate candidates for inclusionary zoning in
system in a city of Ottawa’s size and complexity the mid- to long- term. We request a mechanism to apply to the Ministry to include
is a major undertaking that would take years other areas in the future that are not tied to the development permit process.
and considerable resources to implement.
• The City has not yet fully studied the potential
impacts of a partial geographic application of
the IZ tool, but it has been suggested through
preliminary discussions with stakeholders that
limiting the use of inclusionary zoning to the
 vicinity of major transit stations is likely to
create a disincentive to development near
those stations.
• Unclear why the Province is linking inclusionary
zoning to development permits.

18 Schedule 12 – Planning Act – Decision • Decision timelines are reduced by The City has no comments.
timelines approximately 40% for OPAs and rezoning. This
would make it more difficult to meet timelines
for Council decision on planning applications.
• Although this moderately increases the risk of
an appeal by an applicant for a lack of decision,
staff feel the risk is low, since applicants are
still more likely to complete their process with
the City before their appeal is ever heard by
LPAT
• These changes in timelines may have the
operational effect of transferring more of the
processing work to the pre-application stage.
• Changes in timelines may impact our ability to
comply with the Public Notification and
Consultation Policy.
• Don Herweyer stated: Timelines will not likely
be met on complex applications unless there is
a corresponding reduction to the notification,
public notice requirements spelled out in the
Act, not likely to generate a significant increase
in appeals however given cost and time to go
to LPAT
19 Schedule 12 – Planning Act – various • The amendments effectively reset the The City has no comments.
changes to grounds for appeal legislation to what it was before 2017
• Since the new legislation had not been in effect
for long, this has no real impact on the City’s
approach

20 Schedule 12 – Planning Act –
Community benefits charge
21 Schedule 12 – Planning Act –
Mandatory Development Permit
System
• Removes public appeal rights on plan of
subdivision applications (The legislation limits
the public appeal rights on plan of subdivisions
to the applicant and specified public agencies,
utilities etc.)
• The amendment replaces development The City urges the Province to withdraw this portion of the legislation and take more
charges for soft services, Section 37, and cash time to consult with municipalities on appropriate ways to contain growth-related
in lieu of parkland with a new community costs for soft services. Growth should continue to pay for growth. But if charges in
benefits charge some areas of Ontario are too high, it would be far more effective to introduce new
• This creates a duplicate process to the rules in the existing Development Charges legislation rather than introducing a
Development Charges by-law for soft services, parallel process.
is administratively burdensome and will not
yield as much revenue to the City If the Province is committed to proceeding despite Ottawa’s opposition, we urge the
• 60% of community benefits charges must be Province to:
spent within one year of collection. Staff feel • Exclude parkland dedication from this formula and retain the existing system of
that this clause jeopardizes the City’s ability to parkland dedication or cash in lieu
save up for larger projects, and that this matter • Remove clause 37 (27) from the legislation - the requirement to spend 60%
should be a local decision rather than a within one year.
provincial decision. • The City strongly insists that the legislation be explicit in stating that section 37
• In 2018, the City received approximately $9.5 and existing DC and CILP agreements will be honoured with no retroactivity to
million in cash in lieu revenue and $1 million the new legislation.
from Section 37 benefits)
• For new subdivisions, the City will have to
choose between getting parkland dedication
(land) or a Community Benefit charge.
• Gives the Minister the power to impose a The City has no comments.
development permit system in a municipality
for purposes to be prescribed by regulation.
• Staff feel that this is comparable to the powers
the Minister currently has under Minister’s
Zoning Order so there is effectively no change
to the power of the Minister to impose
planning rules in a municipality. This just
 enables a development permit system in
addition to a Minister’s Zoning Order
• Until the regulations come out, it is not clear
what this will be used for, but likely to upzone
areas near major transit stations. Since the
City is being proactive in this regard, it is
unlikely this would be necessary in Ottawa
22 Schedule 13 – Workplace Safety and • Amendments do not apply to municipalities The City has no comment.
Insurance Act
23 Lack of Regulations and Guidelines Many of the proposed legislative changes will be It is anticipated that the City will have more comments related to the contents of the
further defined through Regulations and proposed Regulations.
Guidelines, which are anticipated in the latter half
of 2019 (according to communication from the
Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport).